Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Science

Using Anthrax To Fight Cancer 27

StarEmperor writes "According to this BBC news article, scientists have used a version of the anthrax toxin to kill tumors in mice. The toxin was so effective that after just one treatment tumours were reduced in size by up to 92%."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Using Anthrax To Fight Cancer

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 13, 2003 @09:49PM (#5077536)
    "The toxin was so effective that after just one treatment tumours were reduced in size by up to 92%" ...but unfortunately, the scientists haven't figured out a way to keep the anthrax from killing the mice, but they remain optimistic. "The last mouse took 72 hours before it suffering respiratory failure, and tumor reduction was still 86%!"
  • Effectiveness (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JohnFluxx ( 413620 ) on Monday January 13, 2003 @09:52PM (#5077554)
    When something like this kills off a large percentage of cells, say even 99%, I always wonder why 1% survive - are they resistent somehow? Or the toxins can't reach those particular cells? Or what?
    • by Big Sean O ( 317186 ) on Monday January 13, 2003 @09:59PM (#5077596)
      Gee, I could have told you that large doses of anthrax would stop tumor growth.

      Oh, you wanted the patient to live?

      um... sorry... next comment...
      • Re:Effectiveness (Score:3, Informative)

        The authors of the study have managed to modify the anthrax toxin (or one of its associated proteins?? I'm still reading the article) to specifically target the toxin to urokinase, a protein that is expressed on the cell surface. In cancerous cells, expression of this protein is dramaticly increased so the modified anthrax toxin will preferentially bind to and kill cancerous cells. Like any chemotherapy, some noncancerous cells will likely also be hit by the poison but hopefully less than in traditional chemotherapy.
    • Re:Effectiveness (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Big Sean O ( 317186 ) on Monday January 13, 2003 @10:16PM (#5077693)
      Paracelsus said "The Dose Makes the Poison". When you're talking Toxicology, there's all different kinds of reasons.

      • The toxin may be excreted before it can be effective
      • The toxin may be competing with a 'good' material (for instance, giving Carbon Monoxide victims Oxygen in large quantities helps reduce the effects of CO).
      • Natural flora. Our gut is infested with a broad spectrum of bacteria and microscopic critters. The homeostatic mixture of these 'bugs' keeps us healthy. When we get stomach virus or eat some bad meat, our natural flora gets disrupted and we get a 'bad poo day'.
      • The cells that make up our body vary in different types of proteins in the cell membrane. Our genes express different proteins in different cells (that's what essentially makes the difference between a brain cell and a muscle cell). When a strange protein enters the body, some won't have the right combination of defending proteins. The cells which do have the proper 'antibodies' will succeed and reproduce.


      That's the real reason that getting rid of cancer is so hard. In radiation or chemotherapy, you are trying to hit on the right combination of poison that will kill the cancer cells and leave the 'normal' cells alone. Some of the normal cells (like hair cells) do get wiped out.

      The Human Genome and the Folding At Home projects both very exciting because we're learning which genes make which proteins and which proteins work where. The more we understand the 'machine', the more likely we can turn it off, rather than smash it with a hammer...

      Sheesh, another biology lecture... Sorry, but you asked...
  • by Inexile2002 ( 540368 ) on Monday January 13, 2003 @09:54PM (#5077567) Homepage Journal
    Scientists in the US have come forward to confirm the British findings and excitedly add that Winger, Pantera and Judas Priest have also shown promising results. Cancer patients are urged to use 80's metal with caution however, as side effects such as mullets, Pointac Firebird ownership and acid wash jeans can often overshadow the original illness.
  • by Dr. Photo ( 640363 ) on Monday January 13, 2003 @10:11PM (#5077667) Journal
    ... "the cure is worse than the disease"
  • by Bowling Moses ( 591924 ) on Monday January 13, 2003 @11:15PM (#5077957) Journal
    Anthrax is a complex of three proteins: anthrax protective antigen, edema factor, and lethal factor. Anthrax works by binding onto the surface of a cell, then an endogenous protease cleaves the protective antigen, which allows the lethal factor to enter the cell where it acts as a protease chopping up the cell's proteins (notably those involved with cellular signaling) which kills the cell. The authors of the above study [pnas.org] have replaced the old cleavage site in the anthrax protective antigen with one that is recognized and specifically cut by urokinase, which is dramaticly upregulated in cells that are cancerous. The result is that the anthrax toxin binds cells but is only cleaved by urokinase, not by whatever was cutting it before. So cells that are making lots of urokinase (cancer cells) cut more of the anthrax protective antigen which allows more of the anthrax lethal factor to enter the cell and chop up more proteins, which kills the cell. The down side is that all cells produce some level of urokinase, so a few noncanerous cells will also be killed by the anthrax toxin, but this sounds like it could be less than traditional chemotherapy. Anyway, this is an incredibly slick idea for combating cancer!
    • I am not a doctor, but isn't urokinase produced by the kidneys [virginia.edu] ?

      If so, we can assume the kidneys have great concentrations of it, and this Anthrax treatment could harm the kidneys, leading to kidneys failure. Not so good, IMO.
      • I think that urokinase is produced by the kidneys, but it is taken up by the cancerous cells. Therefore, while all cells are susceptible to anthrax to some degree, the majority of the agent will target the cancer cells primarily.

        Of course, large concentrations will cause wide-spread disease, not just of the kidneys.
  • Statistics (Score:4, Funny)

    by droyad ( 412569 ) on Tuesday January 14, 2003 @01:03AM (#5078516)
    after just one treatment tumours were reduced in size by up to 92% . Scientist believe this was due to 92% of the rats dying and being eaten
  • Not one comment on Scott Ian & the boys? Not even a troll?
  • by Muad'Dave ( 255648 ) on Tuesday January 14, 2003 @08:53AM (#5079823) Homepage

    North Korea and Iraq are going to claim they're just doing cancer research? "Cancer research, yeah, that's the ticket!"

  • by Hatfieldje ( 147296 ) <hhatfiel@@@cs...byu...edu> on Tuesday January 14, 2003 @12:31PM (#5081560)
    to think that this never would have been discovered if we hadn't had that Anthrax scare. I mean, you can't tell me that scientists were just sitting around and then said, "Let's see if we can alter Anthrax to kill cancer". It was more of a "Recent events have shown us that Anthrax is an efficient cell killer. Let's take it and see if we can customize it to attack cancerous cells." And then they used a characteristic that separates cancer cells from normal cells and exploit it to the benefit of man. What a great world we live in.

    It makes me happy to see scientists turn something that has been portrayed as only an indiscriminate killer (which, unaltered, it is) and use it to battle one of the body's toughest enemies.

    Bravo.
  • by On Lawn ( 1073 ) on Tuesday January 14, 2003 @05:36PM (#5083411) Journal

    Its just one of many ways that Anthrax is like The Cure.

BLISS is ignorance.

Working...